Iran Labour Front: Minimum Wage, "Unprecedent Poverty and Hunger", and Strikes

Jafar Azim Zadeh, the head of the Free Assembly of Iranian Workers, in an interview with Deutsche Welle:

DW: Yesterday, the new Minimum Wage rate was announced. What is your assessment of the rate which is $303 (per month) for the next Iranian year?

Azim Zadeh: The $303 rate, which is an increase of 15 percent compared to the last year, not only will not solve any of the Iranian workers' problems, but compared to the current year rate of $260 will bring greater hunger and destitution for the Iranian working people.

Today in Tehran, $303 does not even pay for the rent of accommdation for a 4-person family. With $303, it may be possible only to pay rent for some periphery locations in Tehran. With food, clothing, health, education, and other expenses, I think the workers will face unprecedented poverty and hunger in the coming year.



DW: Considering that even the $260 was not paid for several months and the owed wages were postponed for the next year, how will the new year look for workers? What effect will this have on their lives?

Azim Zadeh: As I mentioned, setting $303 as the minimum wage will bring unprecedented poverty for workers. Indeed, the poverty and hunger in the coming year can not be compared with even the last couple of years.

Considering the expected high inflation and the ending subsidies, even if the minimum wages are paid on time, this will not take any burdens off the workers, let alone if they are postponed for six months or one year.

As you mentioned, we saw during this year the same low $260 monthly rate, which have been delayed for six months or for even a year. I dare say, the wages for three or four million workers across Iran (especially for those in one- or two-year projects, such as Asalouyeh, Mahshahrpor, and others, who have had their wages delayed) ensure they face very hard times.

Considering the current economic situation, it is expected that not only delays in wage payments will not be curtailed, but in the coming year it will actually increase. In such a situation, it is natural that absolute and unprecedented hunger will be forced on the working class in Iran.

DW: Considering that we are in the final days of the year and workers protests are continuing, what course will these protests take? And if there are to be any compromises between the state and the workers, how will that compromise be brokered?

Azim Zadeh: I think workers' protests will sharply increase in the coming year and spread across the country. As you know, the subsidies are expected to be cut by $20 billion. According to a report by the Parliament Research Office, the inflation rate caused by this cut will be 37 percent. (This is based on the inflation rate announced by the central bank which is 11 percent in the past three months.) All the while the government talks about a "gift" by raising the minimum wages by 15 percent.

It should also be noted that the psychological effect of cutting the subsidies will also increase the rate announced by the Parliament Research Office. Meanwhile, based on our experience of the Iranian economy, in the last 30 years, we have had a nominal increase of 30 percent in the inflation rate.

With the yearly inflation and the 37 percent cuts in subsidies recently announced, and the addition of the psychological effects, the $303 may not even have the buying power of today’s $100.

It is natural for workers to react to such a situation, especially with the chronic economic crisis always at hand and constant wage arrears. The Iranian working class shall not remain silent. Workers' unrest will increase.

On the understanding between the state and the workers, the rate announced today shows that the state and the employers are not at all willing to reach an understanding with the workers. They want to force hunger and poverty on the workers while continuing to enrich themselves. It is natural that the conclusion of such a scenario is the widespread workers protests.

DW: It is reported today that the government was not even able to agree to this 15 percent increase.

Azim Zadeh: Yes, that is true. The Labor Minister in last night's televised interview discussed the 15 percent increase and the 11 percent inflation rate. But the minister did not properly address its own labor law, which states that workers' wages are not to be based on inflation alone but also on the expenses of a family of four.

How is it possible to base the workers wages on this year’s inflation rate when the next year's inflation will be overwhelming for the workers? They are using the inflation rate from March while next year inflation will increase by 20 to 30 percent. Meanwhile, they have completely forgotten their own bases in the law, which is the expenses for a workers family of four.

Happy St. Patrick's Day from EA

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbuRA_D3KU&feature=related[/youtube]

Iran Analysis: What Does the Fire Festival Mean?

Sometimes a celebration should be considered first as a celebration.

After months of reporting on tension and conflict, it was a pleasure to watch the joy of Iranians on Chahrshanbeh Suri, the eve of Iranian New Year celebration of the renewal of fire. Although there was a heavy security presence in main streets and squares, this did not --- as The Washington Post reported --- "block traditional celebrations".

Latest Iran Video: Two Views of the Fire Festival (16 March)

Instead, on side streets and outside residences across Iran, people gathered to set off firecrackers, sing, dance, and jump over the small fires which hark back to Zoroastrian tradition. An EA reader eagerly wrote us, "Our family live in a provincial town. It was rocking tonight with the sound of fireworks! Cud be heard in every part of the town :-)" Even in Press TV's state-sanitised video of events, there is the pleasure of an elderly woman gingerly skipping in her long dress over a few inches of flame.



I never had the sense, despite some eager chatter, that this was going to be an occasion for bring-down-the-Government marches. Some in the Western media, coming late to the party, had the misleading impression that this was going to be an attempted recovery of the blunted rally of 22 Bahman (11 February) --- The Guardian, which set up emergency LiveBlog coverage, seemed particularly disappointed --- but this was not a make-or-break Green Movement moment.

Instead, this was an occasion to celebrate Iranian identity and to have some fun. For me, that seems to be more than enough to observe and praise.

Sometimes a celebration should then be considered political.

But even if the videos coming out of Iran were limited and of basic quality --- the regime is still waging a cyber-war against communication --- and even if the direct protests of "Death to the Dictator" were scattered, don't be mistaken: even having fun and "being Iranian" can be a political act.

Ironically, we have the Supreme Leader to thank for making this clear. His clumsy intervention that Chahrshanbeh Suri “has no religious basis and is harmful and must be avoided” turned an appearance at the Fire Festival into a gesture of disregard or even defiance.

He may be Supreme Leader, but this was how far Ayatollah Khamenei's legitimacy extends. This morning, after thousands (how many thousands?) celebrated in his or her way, the Supreme Leader's "fatwa" has reportedly been removed from his website.

To show authority, security forces closed stores and shopping malls in Tehran during the afternoon and banned motorcycles in the city. Municipal garbage containers were collected to prevent their being used to make bonfires. Thousands of officers were placed at the capital's main gathering points. Neighborhood police officers went door to door warning residents that large celebrations were banned.

As thousands (how many thousands?) still sang and danced and set off their firecrackers, was this a sign of regime legitimacy or a sign of forced authority? As thousands (how many thousands?) shared the festivities with friends and family, was this a sign of confidence or a sign of fear?

As we closed coverage last night, the message came in from a Tehran resident, via another EA reader, who had been told of "Western" reports that nothing political had occurred during Chahrshanbeh Suri. The resident, after an evening of joy and celebration, simply responded:

"In Iran everything is political."

Latest Iran Video: Two Views of the Fire Festival (16 March)

The Opposition Version: "Death to the Dictator"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUuESUdmYwQ[/youtube]

The State Version: Press TV

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8lQDDdLi6Y&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

US-Israel: How An Alliance Strolled Towards A Crisis

Sharmine Narwani writes for The Huffington Post:

In the Mideast, only one thing is ever certain. Expect the unexpected. The smallest incident can flare up overnight and alter even God's well-laid plans.

The latest conflagration erupted over something that Israel has been doing for 42 years. The announcement of plans for 1,600 new illegal settlement apartments in Occupied East Jerusalem --- the slated capital of the future Palestinian state --- would have been a mere irritant for the US in normal circumstances.

Israel: Netanyahu Swims in Dangerous Waters

But US President Barack Obama still has egg on his face from his early failure to wrangle a settlement freeze from Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu only agreed to a meaningless 10-month halt, excluding "natural growth" and East Jerusalem builds. That is a loophole large enough to accommodate an elephant.



And after a year of walking a high-voltage tightrope to resuscitate peace talks --- one that largely exposed the US inability to stand up to Israel and sent the Arab world into a spiraling depression --- the Jewish state's announcement of more settlement homes during Vice President Joe Biden's recent visit to inaugurate a new round of peace talks hit this American administration like a ton of bricks.

Netanyahu, for all his protestation that the announcement was unintended and "innocent", is known among world leaders as a liar bar none. And nobody bought his latest whopper.

This time Washington delivered a long overdue smack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the move "insulting", Obama adviser David Axelrod called it a "calculated" plan, and once Biden found his footing, he warned Israelis:

This is starting to get dangerous for us...what you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US Military Weighs In

And that is the real difference this time around. Over the weekend CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus, responsible for US security interests in the Middle East, ordered an unusual Pentagon briefing for Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Petraeus' briefers told a stunned Mullen that "there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region".

Hell, I could have told him that. American troops fighting Salafi jihadists in the region are endangered each and every time Israel makes a move to undermine Palestinian rights --- daily violations flashed across Arab TV screens that anger the masses and are the number one recruitment tool for Salafi groups worldwide. Petraeus' unprecedented initiative delivered the stark warning that while Israel was important to the US, it was not as important as the lives of American soldiers.

Now put this in context. Every time Obama has sought to advance his Mideast agenda, Israel has managed to put a new cog in his wheels. The US president started off his term insisting that Arab-Israeli peace be dealt with before Iran's nuclear issue, and has had to reverse his plan due to Israeli pressures.

His insistence of a settlement freeze was rebuffed by Israel, he spent long months just trying to wrest a lukewarm endorsement of a Two-State solution from Netanyahu, and instead of the goodwill gestures he requested from his "close friend," Obama has to contend with a new Israeli condition that Palestinians recognize the "Jewishness" of the state of Israel but have no conditions of their own.

This relationship was cold well before Biden set foot on Israeli soil. Note that Obama has not yet paid a visit to Tel Aviv, although he has already in his first year visited Riyadh, Cairo and Ankara.

Undoubtedly, part of the problem is the right-wing coalition leading Israel's government. The wily Netanyahu is likely straining as far as he can toward a centrist position without having his government collapse. And as tensions with the US grow, the religious-right parties in his coalition are guaranteed to hold his every action further under a microscope. It will be up to him to decide between a warmer relationship with the US or his coalition of extremists. So far he has gone with the crazies.

Obama is right to make Netanyahu choose. His administration has bent over backward to pander to Netanyahu's domestic considerations, and has in the process lost an immense amount of credibility in the Mideast -- and globally -- for its timidity in the face of Israeli intransigence.

But Obama has to first deal with Israel at home. In response to his administration's harsh criticism of Israeli actions over the weekend, the US-based, pro-Israel lobby AIPAC put out a statement warning that the escalated rhetoric was a "matter of serious concern" and urged Obama to take steps to diffuse tensions "immediately."

Reminding Obama that Israel "enjoys vast bi-partisan support in Congress", the lobby advises him to resolve matters "privately" and warns against any distraction from the problem of Iran's nukes.

Will someone please make them register as a foreign agent?

A Test For Israel?

The backdrop to this escalation is Secretary Clinton's long phone call to Netanyahu last Friday when she made at least four demands which she expects Netanyahu to carry out in order to restore "confidence in bilateral relations" and jumpstart peace talks.

Included are demands that Netanyahu investigate the announcement of the settlement plans to see if this was a "deliberate act"; reverse the decision to construct the 1,600 settler homes; make a "substantial gesture" toward Palestinians that may include the release of political prisoners, the withdrawal of IDF troops from areas of the West Bank and the easing of the Gaza blockade; and officially announce that peace talks will include all of the conflict's core issues.

Whew. The greater question is, are Obama and Clinton going to take concrete and hard-hitting punitive actions if Netanyahu refuses to acquiesce? Undoubtedly, the Israelis will consider the fact that midterm elections in Congress will make it politically difficult for an embattled US president to take any strong actions against Israel.

But I suspect Netanyahu will be in for some surprises if he balks at compromises --- at least further down the line. His ambassador in Washington is convinced that US-Israeli relations are facing their worst crisis in 35 years.

A Strategic Alliance That Hurts More Than Helps

While things may calm down for a spell, it will only be delaying the inevitable. There are myriad other problematic factors that have stacked up this time around, not least the US's growing isolation in the region caused by its tacit and outright support of many Israeli actions --- the Gaza war, human rights crimes, ongoing occupation and settlement activity, its illegal nuclear weapons program and the unsupportable targeting of Iran as the region's next "Iraq" --- issues that make US friends wary, if not downright agitated.

The Arab states, including America's closest regional allies, at the US's urging risked their own domestic credibility by endorsing the ill-fated "Proximity Talks". They are up in arms now, speaking to Washington with one voice and outraged that this US administration cannot reign in Israel. They will need more than reassurances this time.

And if Petraeus has anything to say about it --- and he has --- the American military establishment can no longer turn the other cheek and pretend Israeli actions are not detrimental to the US's national security interests.

No matter the bluster by American officials that the US and Israel walk lockstep on security issues, this fiction threatens to unravel. The dated US-Israeli narrative has served the Jewish state well, but has endangered American interests throughout the Middle East for decades.

I suspect that if Obama takes a strong stand and backs American interests over Israeli machinations, he will find more friends at home and abroad than he ever imagined. The alternative is that he allow Netanyahu to singlehandedly scuttle his entire Mideast agenda.